[PATCH v2] Fix ERROR:do not initialise statics to 0 in af_vsock.c

Found by scripts/checkpatch.pl Signed-off-by: Lepton Wu --- net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c index 43a1dec08825..a60df252d3cc 100644 --- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c +++ b/net/vmw_vsock

[PATCH] Fix ERROR:do not initialise statics to 0 in af_vsock.c

Found by scripts/checkpatch.pl --- net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c index 43a1dec08825..a60df252d3cc 100644 --- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c @@ -505,7 +505,7

[PATCH v2] VSOCK: bind to random port for VMADDR_PORT_ANY

packets could hit that orphaned vsock. We could also fix this by doing more in vhost_vsock_reset_orphans, but any way, it should be better to start from a random local port instead of a fixed one. Signed-off-by: Lepton Wu --- net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 7 ++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1

[PATCH] VSOCK: bind to random port for VMADDR_PORT_ANY

packets could hit that orphaned vsock. We could also fix this by doing more in vhost_vsock_reset_orphans, but any way, it should be better to start from a random local port instead of a fixed one. Signed-off-by: Lepton Wu --- net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 6 +- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1

Re: [RFC PATCH] 2.6.22.6 netfilter: sk_setup_caps in ip_make_route_harder

a way to tell tcp stack the sk_route_caps of the real out device, we can just disable all things for safety. On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 02:39:58PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > lepton wrote: > > Yes, you are right. > > What do you think about this: > > For all packets can be

Re: [PATCH RESEND] 2.6.22.6 networking [ipv4]: fix wrong destination when reply packetes

Now icmp_reply is only called by icmp_echo and icmp_timestamp ip_send_reply is only called by tcp_v4_send_reset and tcp_v4_send_ack I think in all situations the ip_hdr(skb)->saddr is set and should be the destination of reply packets. If using rt->rt_src as destination is correct in some situati

[PATCH RESEND] 2.6.22.6 networking [ipv4]: fix wrong destination when reply packetes

loopback device. But I think just to use ip_hdr(skb)->saddr instead of rt->rt_src as destination to reply packetes is a more simple fix. Thanks Kenan Kalajdzic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for help me with more details about this problem. Signed-off-by: Lepton Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [RFC PATCH] 2.6.22.6 netfilter: sk_setup_caps in ip_make_route_harder

Yes, you are right. What do you think about this: For all packets can be sent out, we just disable all things in sk_route_caps in ip_route_me_harder diff -X linux-2.6.22.6/Documentation/dontdiff -pru linux-2.6.22.6/net/ipv4/netfilter.c linux-2.6.22.6-lepton/net/ipv4/netfilter.c --- linux

Re: [PATCH] 2.6.22.6 NETWORKING [IPV4]: Always use source addr in skb to reply packet

Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:14:56PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [EMAIL PROTECTED](B wrote: > > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Mon, 17 Sep > >2007 19:20:44 -0700 (PDT)), David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says: > >

Re: [PATCH] 2.6.22.6 NETWORKING [IPV4]: Always use source addr in skb to reply packet

Hi, sorry for my previous email. What I mean is icmp_reply and ip_send_reply in some situation will send out packets with wrong DESTINATION address. the source address is always correct. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PRO

Re: [PATCH] 2.6.22.6 NETWORKING [IPV4]: Always use source addr in skb to reply packet

ply to 10.10.10.1 instead of simply reversing the source and destination addresses as required by the RFC. On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 11:26:44AM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [EMAIL PROTECTED](B wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:20:44 -0700 (PDT)), > David

[PATCH] 2.6.22.6 NETWORKING [IPV4]: Always use source addr in skb to reply packet

Hi, In some situation, icmp_reply and ip_send_reply will send out packet with the wrong source addr, the following patch will fix this. I don't understand why we must use rt->rt_src in the current code, if this is a wrong fix, please correct me. Signed-off-by: Lepton Wu

why we use skb->rt->rt_src as dest address when replying packet?

I found in function [ip_send_reply] and [icmp_reply], we use such code to get the destination address of our packet: struct rtable *rt = (struct rtable *)skb->dst; .. daddr = ipc.addr = rt->rt_src; I have a question here: Is there any special reason for using rt->rt_src as destination address